Changes

Although [[HegelTimothy Garton Ash]] was among the first to interpret the geographic is my [[triadpolitical]] opponent, I’ve always admired his wealth of precise observations and found him a reliable source on the vicissitudes of post-[[GermanyCommunist]]-[[FranceEastern Europe]]-. In his new book, <i>The Free [[EnglandWorld]] as expressing three existential attitudes: [[German]] reflective thoroughnessAmerica, [[French]] [[revolutionEurope]]ary hastiness and the Suprising [[English]] moderate [[pragmatismFuture]]. In terms of political stancesthe West</i>, this triad can be read as [[GermanAsh]] applies his signature bitterly witty approach to the growing tensions between key [[conservatismWestern Europe]], an [[French]] [[radicalismstate]] s and the [[English]] [[liberalismUnited States]]. In terms of a predominating social sphere, it is His aperçus [[Germanabout]] the relations among the [[cultureUnited Kingdom]] versus , [[FrenchFrance]] and [[politicsGermany]] versus [[Englishrecall]] [[economy]]. [[Ash]] observes that today this trinity has undergone the gentle irony of a novel of manners, giving a strange [[displacement]]: The French are preoccupied with [[culture]] (How new twist to save their legacy from vulgar [[Americanization]]); the English focus on political dilemmas (Should they join the European Monetary Union?); the Germans worry about the sad inertia old topic of their “[[economyEuropean trinity]].”

A desired goal might be a further shift[[Hegel]] was among the first to [[interpret]] the geographic [[triad]] of [[Germany]]-[[France]]-[[England]] as expressing [[three]] existential attitudes: The [[German]] reflective thoroughness, [[French]] [[revolution]]ary hastiness and [[English focused on ]] moderate [[pragmatism]]. In [[cultureterms]] (their cultural tolerance and lack of pretence could serve political stances, this triad can be read as an antidote to [[German]] [[conservatism]], [[French arrogant elitism ]] [[radicalism]] and [[English]] [[liberalism]]. In terms of a predominating [[social]] sphere, it is [[German excessive seriousness)]] [[culture]] versus [[French]] [[politics]] versus [[English]] [[economy]]. [[Ash]] observes that today this trinity has undergone a strange [[displacement]]: The French focused on are preoccupied with [[economyculture]] (which, against all expectations, theirs has been doing rather wellHow to save their legacy from vulgar [[Americanization]]). And — surprise! — Germans ; the English focus on politics political dilemmas (where Should they join the European Monetary Union?); the Germans worry about the sad inertia of their recent political life has served as a model of reasonable debate that avoids blind passions)[[economy]].

So far, so good. However, in the second half of <i>The Free World</i>, when [[Ash]] diagnoses the threats to [[freedom]] in the post-A desired [[Cold Wargoal]], he becomes [[dogma]]tic and simplistic, his proposed solutions hopelessly naïve and declaratory. True, here and there, one finds insights surprising for might be a man of Ash’s political position (like his unambiguous attack further shift: The English focused on the trade agreements that are pushing the poorer countries toward ruin). Yet his positive proposals lack any foundation in a detailed analysis of the global situation. First, he identifies four “new Red Armies” (sic!) as forces of [[Evilculture]] (or historical processes) that pose or will pose a threat to their [[democracycultural]] in the future: 1) the Near East situation (the unresolved [[Israeltolerance]]i-and [[Palestine|Palestinianlack]] conflict of pretence could serve as an antidote to French arrogant elitism and the rise of German excessive seriousness). The French focused on [[Muslim fundamentalismeconomy]](which, against all expectations, theirs has been doing rather well); 2) the Far East situation . And — surprise! — Germans on politics (what will where their [[Chinarecent]] develop into with regard to political [[democracylife]]?); 3) the gap between the rich North and poor South; and 4) the oncoming has served as a [[environmentmodel]]al catastropheof reasonable debate that avoids blind passions). </p>

HereSo far, so [[Ashgood]] simply enumerates four domains that cause worry. ConsequentlyHowever, in the second half of <i>The Free World</i>, when [[Ash]] diagnoses the [[threats]] to [[freedom]] in the post-[[Cold War]], he becomes [[dogma]]tic and simplistic, his proposed solutions read less hopelessly naïve and declaratory. [[True]], here and there, one finds insights surprising for a man of Ash’s political [[position]] (like his unambiguous attack on the trade agreements that are pushing the poorer countries toward ruin). Yet his positive proposals lack any foundation in a plan for action grounded in serious detailed [[analysis ]] of the [[global constellation and more like ]] [[situation]]. First, he [[identifies]] four “new Red Armies” (sic!) as forces of [[Evil]] (or historical [[processes]]) that pose or will pose a list of desiderata [[threat]] to [[democracy]] in the future: 1) the Near East situation (the developed countries should abide by unresolved [[Israel]]i-[[Palestine|Palestinian]] [[conflict]] and the rules rise of fair market competition they impose on [[Muslim fundamentalism]]); 2) the underdeveloped ones; they should make a more serious effort Far East situation (what will [[China]] develop into with [[regard]] to thwart ecological disaster[[democracy]]?); only a combined U.S.-E.U. alliance can solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, etc.3). Indeed, how can one respond to this platitude: “If we want to be able to look ourselves in the face every morning, anyone who earns more than gap between the average wage in a rich country should aim to give 1 percent of his or her annual income to charities with a good track record in North and poor South; and 4) the developing world. We can afford itoncoming [[environment]]al catastrophe.”</p>

The European publishers of <i>The Free World</i> chose a far more intriguing subtitle for the bookHere, hinting that [[Ash]] would explain: “Why A Crisis Of The West Reveals The Opportunity Of Our Time.” But the book fails to live up to the expectations aroused by this subtitle, namely, simply enumerates four domains that the post-[[Cold Warcause]] worldworry. Consequently, though it generates new problems, also could provide his proposed solutions read less like a unique chance to confront them. My own perception of these problems is hopelessly tinted by “outmoded” [[Marxism]]: The four trouble spots plan for [[Ashaction]] identifies are clearly grounded in serious analysis of the dynamics of today’s global constellation and more like a [[global capitalismlist]]. This link is self-evident in of desiderata (the developed countries should abide by the case rules of fair [[environmentmarket]]al collapse and competition they impose on the underdeveloped ones; they should make a more serious effort to thwart ecological disaster; only a combined U.S.-E.U. alliance can solve the NorthIsraeli-South [[poverty]] gapPalestinian crisis, etc.). As for Indeed, how can one respond to this platitude: “If we [[Islamic fundamentalismwant]]to be able to look ourselves in the face every morning, does it not arise through anyone who earns more than the refusal average wage in a rich country should aim to give 1 percent of [[Muslim]] [[civilizatio]] his or her annual income to integrate charities with a good track record in the social dynamics of [[capitalism]]? And doesn’t [[China]]’s strange economic dynamic stem from the fact that developing world. We can afford it is a [[Communist]] state that fully endorses [[capitalist]] [[economy]]? .”

The question should therefore be put at European publishers of <i>The Free World</i> [[chose]] a far more general levelintriguing subtitle for the book, hinting that [[Ash]] would explain: Where do we stand regarding “Why A Crisis Of The West Reveals The Opportunity Of Our [[global capitalismTime]].” But the book fails to live up to the expectations aroused by this subtitle, namely, that the post-[[Cold War]] world, though it generates new problems, also could provide a unique [[chance]] to confront [[them]]? . Are My own [[perception]] of these troubling problems is hopelessly tinted by “outmoded” [[Marxism]]: The four trouble spots [[symptomAsh]]s identifies are clearly grounded in the dynamics of a structural flaw inscribed today’s [[global capitalism]]. This link is [[self]]-evident in the very core [[case]] of [[environment]]al collapse and the capitalist machineNorth-South [[poverty]] gap. As for [[Islamic fundamentalism]], or are they accidents does it not arise through the [[refusal]] of [[Muslim]] [[civilizatio]] to integrate the social dynamics of [[capitalism]]? And doesn’t [[China]]’s strange [[economic]] [[dynamic]] stem from the fact that it is a [[Communist]] state that could be kept under control, if not resolvedfully endorses [[capitalist]] [[economy]]?

This does not mean one The question should reject [[Ash]]’s [[diagnosis]] and proposals with the crude [[Marxist]] retorttherefore be put at a more general level: “He fails to take into account the Where do we stand regarding [[dialecticglobal capitalism]]al ? Are these troubling spots [[totalitysymptom]] s of the situation.” But [[Ash]] would do well to go back and read a [[Jonathan Alterstructural]]’s column flaw inscribed in Newsweek written directly following [[9/11]]. After stating that “we can’t legalize physical [[torture]]; it’s contrary to American values,” Alter nonetheless concludes that “we’ll have to think about transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies, even if that’s hypocritical. Nobody said this was going to be pretty.” This is how [[First World]] [[democracies]] increasingly function: by outsourcing their dirty work (be it [[torture]] or material [[production]]) to other countries. [[Ash]] is unable to see how the features he condemns (ruthless disregard for very core of the capitalist [[environmentmachine]], the hypocritical double standards of [[free trade]] practices, etc.) or are products of the very social dynamic they accidents that sustains the could be kept under [[First Worldcontrol]]’s role as exporters of [[democracy]] and guardians of [[universal]] [[human rights]]., if not resolved?

It is true This does not mean one can only be shocked by should reject [[Ash]]’s [[diagnosis]] and proposals with the crude [[Marxist]] retort: “He fails to take into account the excessive [[indifferencedialectic]] toward al [[totality]] of the situation.” But [[sufferingAsh]], even when this suffering is widely reported would do well to go back and condemned read [[Jonathan Alter]]’s column in the Newsweek written directly following [[media9/11]]. After [[stating]] that “we can’t legalize [[physical]] [Sudan[torture]] offers a current example; it’s contrary to American values, but recall the three-year-long siege of ” Alter nonetheless concludes that “we’ll have to [[Sarajevothink]]about transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies, when the population even if that’s hypocritical. Nobody said this was starving and exposed going to permanent shelling and sniper firebe pretty. ” The enigma here This is why, although the how [[First World]] [[democracies]] increasingly function: by [[outsourcing]] their dirty [[mediawork]] was continually covering the crisis, was neither the (be it [[U.N.torture]] forces, or [[NATOmaterial]] nor the [[United Statesproduction]] willing ) to impose a corridor in Sarajevo through which people and provisions could circulate freely? [[other]] countries. The only answer [[Ash]] is unable to this enigma was proposed by Rory Brauman, who, on behalf of see how the features he condemns (ruthless disregard for the [[Red Crossenvironment]], coordinated the help to hypocritical [[Sarajevodouble]]: The very presentation standards of the crisis of Sarajevo as “[[humanitarianfree trade]]practices,” etc.) are products of the recasting of a political-military conflict into humanitarian terms, was sustained by a political choice, very social dynamic that sustains the [[First World]]’s [[role]] as exporters of taking the side [[democracy]] and guardians of [[Serbiauniversal]] [[human rights]].

Indeed, such a depoliticizing of “It is true one can only be shocked by the excessive [[Human Rightsindifference]]” too often serves as the toward [[ideologysuffering]] of military interventionism , even when this suffering is widely reported and condemned in support of specific economic-political purposes. For example, the [[U.S.media]] overthrow of . [[Saddam HusseinSudan]]offers a current example, legitimized in but recall the terms of ending the suffering three-year-long siege of the [[IraqSarajevo]]i people, when the population was clearly not only motivated by economic self-interest (starving and exposed to permanent shelling and sniper fire. The enigma here is why, although the [[oilmedia]])was continually covering the crisis, but by was neither the idea that only certain political and economic conditions—[[WestU.N.]]ern forces, [[liberal democracyNATO]], guarantee of nor the [[private propertyUnited States]], the inclusion into the willing to impose a corridor in Sarajevo through which [[global marketpeople]] and provisions could circulate freely? The only answer to this enigma was proposed by Rory Brauman, who, on behalf of the [[economyRed Cross]], etc. — could bring coordinated the [[freedomhelp]] to the Iraqi people. In [[IraqSarajevo]], : The very presentation of the crisis of Sarajevo as “[[humanitarian]] anti,” the recasting of a political-politics of only preventing suffering implicitly prohibited military conflict into humanitarian terms, was sustained by a positive collective project for social and political transformationchoice, that of taking the side of [[Serbia]].

WhatIndeed, then, happens to such a depoliticizing of “[[Human Rights]] when they are reduced to ” too often serves as the [[ideology]] of military interventionism in support of specific economic-political purposes. For example, the [[U.S.]] overthrow of [[Saddam Hussein]], legitimized in the terms of ending the rights suffering of those excluded from the political process — [[Iraq]]i.epeople, when they become uselesswas clearly not only motivated by economic [[self-interest]] ([[oil]]), since they are but by the rights [[idea]] that only certain political and economic conditions—[[West]]ern [[liberal democracy]], [[guarantee]] of those who[[private property]], preciselythe inclusion into the [[global market]] [[economy]], have no rights? etc. — could bring [[freedom]] to the Iraqi people. In [[Jacques RanciereIraq]], the [[Frenchhumanitarian]] anti-politics of only preventing suffering implicitly prohibited a positive collective [[philosopherproject]], recently gave this answer:for social and political transformation.

<blockquote>They become humanitarian rightsWhat, then, happens to [[Human Rights]] when they are reduced to the rights of those who cannot enact them, excluded from the victims of the absolute denial of rightpolitical [[process]] — i. For all thise, when they become useless, since they are not void, Political names and political places never become merely void. The void is filled by somebody or something else. … If the rights of those who suffer inhuman repression are unable to enact Human Rights that are their last recourse, then somebody else has to inherit their precisely, have no rights in order to enact them in their place. This is what is called ? [[Jacques Ranciere]], the “right to humanitarian interference”—a right that some nations assume to the supposed benefit of the victimized populations[[French]] [[philosopher]], and very often against the advice of humanitarian organizations themselves. The “right to humanitarian interference” might be described as a sort of “return to senderrecently gave this answer:” the disused right that had been sent to the rightless are sent back to the senders.</blockquote>

Thus<blockquote>They become humanitarian rights, in the reigning discourse rights of [[humanitarian]] interventionthose who cannot enact them, the developed victims of the absolute [[Westdenial]] is effectively getting back from the victimized of [[Third Worldright]] its own message in its true form. This is also where we should look for candidates to fill the position of “For all this, they are not [[universal individualvoid]],” a particular group whose fate stands for the injustice of today’s world: Political names and political places never become merely void. The void is filled by somebody or something else. … If those who suffer inhuman [[Palestine|Palestiniansrepression]], are unable to enact [[GuantánamoHuman]] prisonersRights that are their last recourse, etc. then somebody else has to inherit their rights in [[Palestineorder]] today presents us with the “opportunity” of to enact them in their [[Ashplace]]’s subtitle because all . This is what is called the “right to humanitarian interference”—a right that some nations assume to the supposed benefit of the standard “pragmatic” solutions victimized populations, and very often against the advice of humanitarian organizations themselves. The “right to the humanitarian interference” might be described as a sort of “[[Middle Eastreturn]] crisis” have repeatedly failed, which suggests to sender:” the disused right that a [[utopian]] invention of a radical new space may be had been sent to the rightless are sent back to the only “realistic” [[choice]]senders.</blockquote>

But there is a better example of today’s “[[universal individual]]”: Thus, in the reigning [[slumdiscourse]] dwellers of the new megalopolises. The explosive growth of slums in the last decades, from [[Mexico]] City and other [[Latin Americahumanitarian]]n capitals through [[Africa]] to [[Indiaintervention]], the developed [[ChinaWest]] and [[Indonesia]], is perhaps the crucial geopolitical event of our time. Take effectively getting back from the case of Lagos, victimized [[NigeriaThird World]]. According to Mike Davis, “No one even knows the size of its population—officially it is 6 million, but most experts estimate it at 10 million.” Very soon (or perhaps, given the imprecision of own [[Third Worldmessage]] censuses, already) the urban population of the earth will outnumber the rural population. And in its true [[slumform]] inhabitants will compose the majority of this urban population. So This is also where we are in no way dealing with a marginal phenomenon, but rather should look for candidates to fill the fast growth position of a population outside “[[stateuniversal individual]] control, living in conditions half outside the ” a [[lawparticular]], in terrible need of group whose fate stands for the minimal forms injustice of self-organization. Slum dwellers—marginalized laborers, superfluous civil servants and ex-peasants — are still incorporated into the today’s world: [[global economyPalestine|Palestinians]] in numerous ways, many of them working as informal [[wage]] [[workersGuantánamo]] or self-employed entrepreneursprisoners, with no adequate health or [[social security]] coverageetc. Slums have mushroomed because of the [[Third WorldPalestine]]’s inclusion into today presents us with the “opportunity” of [[global economyAsh]]. Cheap food imports from ’s subtitle because all of the [[First World]] have destroyed local agriculture forcing millions standard “pragmatic” solutions to flee the countryside. Their existence is the true “[[symptomMiddle East]]” of slogans like “crisis” have repeatedly failed, which suggests that a [[Developmentutopian]],” “invention of a radical new [[Modernizationspace]],” and “may be the only “realistic” [[World Marketchoice]].”</p>

While one should resist the temptation to elevate and idealize But there is a better example of today’s “[[universal individual]]”: the [[slum ]] dwellers into a of the new megalopolises. The explosive growth of slums in the last decades, from [[Mexico]] City and other [[Latin America]]n capitals through [[revolutionAfrica]]ary to [[classIndia]], [[China]] and [[Indonesia]], it is extremely surprising how many of their features fit perhaps the old crucial geopolitical [[Marxistevent]] definition of our time. Take the case of Lagos, [[proletarianNigeria]] . According to Mike Davis, “No one even [[revolutionknows]]ary the size of its population—officially it is 6 million, but most experts estimate it at 10 million.” Very soon (or perhaps, given the imprecision of [[classThird World]]censuses, already) the urban population of the earth will outnumber the rural population. Even more than the classic And [[proletariatslum]], they inhabitants will compose the majority of this urban population. So we are “free” in no way dealing with a marginal phenomenon, but rather the double meaning fast growth of the word — “freed” from all substantial ties and dwelling in a free space population [[outside ]] [[state]] and control, [[living]] in [[conditions]] half outside the [[law]], in terrible [[policeneed]] regulationsof the minimal forms of self-organization. They Slum dwellers—marginalized laborers, superfluous civil servants and ex-peasants — are large collectivesstill incorporated into the [[global economy]] in numerous ways, forcibly thrown into a situation where they must invent some mode many of beingthem [[working]] as informal [[wage]] [[workers]] or self-togetheremployed entrepreneurs, while simultaneously deprived with no adequate health or [[social security]] coverage. Slums have mushroomed because of the [[Third World]]’s inclusion into the [[global economy]]. Cheap food imports from the [[First World]] have destroyed local agriculture forcing millions to flee the countryside. Their [[existence]] is the true “[[symptom]]” of any inherited slogans like “[[ethnicDevelopment]] and ,” “[[religiousModernization]] ,” and “[[traditionWorld Market]]s.”</p>

While one should resist the temptation to elevate and idealize the slum dwellers into a new [[Slumrevolution]] dwellers are the counter-class to the other newly emerging ary [[class]], it is extremely surprising how many of their features fit the so-called “old [[symbolic classMarxist]]” (managers, journalists, definition of the [[academicsproletarian]], [[artrevolution]]ists, etc.) that is also uprooted and that perceives itself as directly ary [[universalclass]]. (A Even more than the classic [[New Yorkproletariat]] academic has more , they are “free” in the double [[meaning]] of the [[word]] — “freed” from all substantial ties and dwelling in common with me, a free space outside [[Slovenestate]] and [[academicpolice]]regulations. They are large collectives, than with the forcibly thrown into a situation where they must invent some mode of [[blackbeing]]s in Harlem half a mile from his campus.) Is this the new axis -together, while simultaneously deprived of any inherited [[class struggleethnic]]? Or is the “and [[symbolic classreligious]]” inherently [[splittradition]], enabling us to make an emancipatory wager on a coalition between the slum dwellers and the “progressives” of the symbolic class?s.

[[Slum]] dwellers are the counter-class to the other newly emerging class, the so-called “[[symbolic class]]” (managers, journalists, [[academics]], [[art]]ists, etc.) that is also uprooted and that perceives itself as directly [[universal]]. (A [[New York]] academic has more in common with me, a [[Slovene]] [[academic]], than with the [[black]]s in Harlem half a mile from his campus.) Is this the new axis of [[class struggle]]? Or is the “[[symbolic class]]” inherently [[split]], enabling us to make an emancipatory wager on a coalition between the slum dwellers and the “progressives” of the [[symbolic]] class? This brings us back to the title — and underlying project — of [[Ash]]’s book: Our main hope for a truly “[[free world]]” lies in the desolate [[universe ]] of the [[slums]]. We should be watching the slum collectives for [[signs ]] of new forms of social [[awareness]]: They will be the seeds of the future.

* [[The Free World ... of Slums]]. ''In These [[Times]]''. September 23, 2004. <http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1090/>. Also listed on ''[[Lacan]].com''. <http://www.lacan.com/zizekslums.htm>.